Send a text message to a specific phone number or email using a chosen connected Messages account. Success confirms submission, not delivery.
Immediately send text to one explicit phone number or email through a selected connected Messages account. This is a real outgoing message; success means submitted, not delivered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| accountId | Yes | ||
| recipient | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds traits beyond that: 'Immediately' signals no delay/undo, and 'success means submitted, not delivered' clarifies the ambiguous success semantics of a real send. It stops short of stating auth requirements or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the highest-value caveat about delivery semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and coverage of the safety profile via annotations, the description smartly supplies the one piece an agent most needs: that submission is not delivery, so it cannot confirm receipt. Missing only accountId acquisition and error/failure behavior, which are minor for a 3-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it effectively maps all three params: 'text' to the body, 'phone number or email' to recipient, and 'selected connected Messages account' to accountId. It does not explain the accountId format or where to source one, which is the remaining gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (send) and resource (text) with precise scope: 'one explicit phone number or email through a selected connected Messages account.' An agent can distinguish this from apple_mail_send (different channel) and apple_mail_create_draft (drafts, not send) without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage constraints ('one explicit' recipient, 'selected connected' account) but names no alternative and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance. It does not, for example, route the agent to apple_messages_list_accounts to obtain an accountId or contrast itself with a draft-first workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.